The Brit riots: “When churches disappear, the vacuum is filled by gangs or tribes.”

_{Denyse O'Leary

August 21, 2011

Atheism, Culture}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In “Cleaning up pre-riot” (Toronto Sun August 19, 2011) British-born Canadian commentator Michael Coren discusses practical riot prevention, suggesting, among other things,

3) Stop the war on religion. Whatever your view of faith and God, the massive decline of religious observance and community in Britain has removed one of the glues that held the country together.

When churches disappear, the vacuum is filled by gangs or tribes. Beyond this is the disappearance of moral standards and ethical absolutes. Witness how in the black community it is the Christian evangelical youths who are least touched by the anarchy.

It was noted at the time that Muslim youths didn’t riot either. Thoughts?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

I'm not "whimpering" nullasalus, you are simply asserting that breaking into a shop is a "secular value". It isn't, in any sense of the term that an atheist would recognise. It's selfish - it's grabbing stuff for yourself, never mind the trouble and loss you cause from someone else. Your implication that for an atheist "morality is whatever you like or agree with at the moment" is simply false.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT}

AG, kindly read from comment 1 above. Evolutionary materialism has in it no worldview foundational is that can ground ought. That makes it amoral,inescapably. And ever since the days of Plato, that has led to the promotion of such amorality to bright young people in the name of sophisticated skeptical thought and "knowledge." The result has ever been the same over the past 2400 years: nihilistic factions and power politics, leading to social chaos. Which was the point being raised in the OP when it cited the author in Canada:
Stop the war on religion. Whatever your view of faith and God, the massive decline of religious observance and community in Britain has removed one of the glues that held the country together. When churches disappear, the vacuum is filled by gangs or tribes. Beyond this is the disappearance of moral standards and ethical absolutes. Witness how in the black community it is the Christian evangelical youths who are least touched by the anarchy.
That is no accident. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT}

Onlookers: Observe the response to specifically showing the Christian scriptures being violated by any followers of Christian churches involved in the troubles in Ireland, in the case in view. Observe, too the response to taking time to point out that moral struggle is a constant of humanity, and moral failure is a challenge we must all face. Notice, thirdly, how the keystone issue: the grounding of OUGHT, is being continually diverted from. Null is quite correct to highlight that nihilism is a serious challenge to atheistic attempts to ground morality, as the only ISes that today's relevant form of atheism -- evolutionary materialism wearing the lab coats of science -- allows, are simply irrelevant to the grounding of ought. By contrast, ethical theism does have specific warranting ground for ought in its foundational is, the inher3ently good Creator God. And, when we turned to the specific tradition that was accused, it was specifically identified from the main teaching text of that faith, that the sorts of behaviours in Ireland in recent years, or the excesses and crimes associated with the crusades, were specifically counter to teachings rooted in precisely the principle of the goodness of God. Which was brushed by as thought hat had no relevance. But it does, all the relevance in the world, and especially so in a day where many with access to very loud microphones are trumpeting from the rooftops that theistic faith is in effect the main root of evils. A slander, a willful and vicious slander, rooted in a refusal to acknowledge the sterling, millennia-long, sustained ethical-moral contributions of the Judaeo-Christian tradition to our civilisation, while too often trying to shout down any who would point to this omission by highlighting litanies of the real or imagined sins of Christendom. So, let me quote Bernard Lewis, on this, in his famous 1990 essay on the roots of Muslim rage:
. . . The accusations are familiar. We of the West are accused of sexism, racism, and imperialism, institutionalized in patriarchy and slavery, tyranny and exploitation. To these charges, and to others as heinous, we have no option but to plead guilty -- not as Americans, nor yet as Westerners, but simply as human beings, as members of the human race. In none of these sins are we the only sinners, and in some of them we are very far from being the worst. The treatment of women in the Western world, and more generally in Christendom, has always been unequal and often oppressive, but even at its worst it was rather better than the rule of polygamy and concubinage that has otherwise been the almost universal lot of womankind on this planet . . . . In having practiced sexism, racism, and imperialism, the West was merely following the common practice of mankind through the millennia of recorded history. Where it is distinct from all other civilizations is in having recognized, named, and tried, not entirely without success, to remedy these historic diseases. And that is surely a matter for congratulation, not condemnation. We do not hold Western medical science in general, or Dr. Parkinson and Dr. Alzheimer in particular, responsible for the diseases they diagnosed and to which they gave their names.
Of course ethical principles are not self-enforcing. But that they exist and have warranting grounds is very important indeed if we are to move beyond "might makes right." Just ask the prophets, martyrs, confessors, reformers, abolitionists and other moral voices in our civilisation across many, many centuries. So, let us not be distracted from that key point: we MUST move on beyond "might makes right." And, plainly evolutionary materialism has no such basis to do so. So, it is irretrievably morally bankrupt. If other relevant forms of atheism do, let us now hear their case. But, let us not allow ourselves to be dragged away from our focus on this pivotal point, through the distractions of various red herrings. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT}

I think you mean “selfish” values. Substitute “selfish” for “secular” in your post above and you have something on which we can all agree. I don't give two craps whether we 'all agree'. And, just as I said: If it's a value an atheist disagrees with, they insist it cannot be a secular value. Why? Because that would be way too freaking honest, in an argument where honesty is to be avoided at all costs. So is rational thinking, it seems. Let's see what you say. In fact, I’d say you were equivocating with the word “secular”, meaning “temporal” or “earthly” when used by religious people, with connotations of “base”, but merely “non-religious” when used by atheists. No, there's no equivocation here whatsoever. Go ahead and refer to 'secular' values as merely 'non-religious' values. Guess what? Deciding that it's A-OK for you to bust into a store, beat the shopkeeper, and steal the goods - particularly if you never get caught or arrested - is a secular value. Whimpering that it's 'selfish' doesn't make it non-secular, because 'secular' and 'selfish' are entirely compatible. Nor did I say all secular values have to be 'selfish', other than the innate 'selfishness' you get when morality is whatever you like or agree with at the moment. Why, I'm willing to say that a materialist who decides, 'Everyone should get a big ol' hug!' has a secular value. I'm simply pointing out that deciding that it's okay to rob a shopkeeper is also a 'secular value'.nullasalus_{August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

In Northern Ireland the churches not only had not disappeared, but were actively responsible for the maintenance of “gangs and tribes”. Seatbelts protect ya from injury in a car accident? Pff. I know me a guy, had his seatbelt on, got in an accident - died anyway. Them fellers tellin' ya that not wearing yer seatbelt leads ta getting yerself more hurt inna accident are fulla it. How they gonna explain that feller who died? And again: So if a nihilist goes on a killing spree, we can be certain that his nihilism played no role in his behavior? The self-described Christian who engages in act X shows that act X is a teaching of Christianity? What's gone on in Ireland really has no secular roots, and doesn't come down to secular values and desires in large part? As usual, secular values are only secular values if they involve hugging. Secular values, actions, and motives that are less popular are disowned immediately.nullasalus_{August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

Yes, it is totally disconnected from atheism. In fact, I'd say you were equivocating with the word "secular", meaning "temporal" or "earthly" when used by religious people, with connotations of "base", but merely "non-religious" when used by atheists. I think you mean "selfish" values. Substitute "selfish" for "secular" in your post above and you have something on which we can all agree. There is nothing inherently "selfish" about atheism.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

No, of course you can't be sure, Nullasalus. But the claim in the headline is: "When churches disappear, the vacuum is filled by gangs or tribes". In Northern Ireland the churches not only had not disappeared, but were actively responsible for the maintenance of "gangs and tribes". Bantay has it absolutely right IMO.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

"Evolutionary materialism leads to the promotion of amorality." Quite the contrary, evolutionary materialism leads to the recognition of what Sarah Palin called "the fallen nature of man". Religion and evolutionary anthropology converge on this conclusion, and the most judicious adaptation of society to this fact to date is classical liberalism, the recognition that men are not fit to rule other men except when their power is checked, balanced and held to standards, and even then the people and leaders must possess a civil morality and a sense of civic duty and the society must treat individuals as if they were responsible for their actions, whether they really have free will or not.africangenesis_{August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

I don’t think anyone is disputing that the people who rioted lacked a moral compass. *I* am disputing that. They did not lack a moral compass - they had, or they arguably had, a secular moral compass, such as it is. They had secular values, secular desires, and engaged in secular acts based on these things. What I’m disputing is that this has anything to do with atheism. Sure. Because as we all know, only nice actions we approve of could have anything to do with atheism. 'I believe everyone deserves a big ol' hug!'? Secular value, atheism in action. 'I believe there's nothing wrong with me smashing open a window to a store, beating the owner, and taking what I want.'? Not a secular value! Totally disconnected from atheism!nullasalus_{August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

Really, I do not see why atheism – a position taken by certain people regarding the existence of god or gods – should be blamed for the evils of every group of people, whatever their views on god or gods, regardless of whether they even have a view on the matter. So if a nihilist goes on a killing spree, we can be certain that his nihilism played no role in his behavior, eh? And whatever else you might want to say about the Troubles of Northern Ireland, you can’t blame it on atheism. The perpetrators and instigators were explicitly religious, and some of them were clergy. Because someone who is a member of a religion can never engage in a secular action, or have secular motives, right? And on the flipside, if a person who describes themselves as a Christian goes out and kills a few infants, clearly killing infants must be condoned by Christianity in some way?nullasalus_{August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT}

I don't think anyone is disputing that the people who rioted lacked a moral compass. What I'm disputing is that this has anything to do with atheism. I'm also disputing that you can derive a moral compass from religion objectively. Sure you can conclude you were made for some objective purpose, but unless you can also objectively discern that purpose you are just as stuck with subjectivity as anyone else.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT}

So it's not atheism that's the problem then? Really, I do not see why atheism - a position taken by certain people regarding the existence of god or gods - should be blamed for the evils of every group of people, whatever their views on god or gods, regardless of whether they even have a view on the matter. Religious people, including Christians, have behaved appallingly since time immemorial, as have irreligious people. And whatever else you might want to say about the Troubles of Northern Ireland, you can't blame it on atheism. The perpetrators and instigators were explicitly religious, and some of them were clergy.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT}

Oh, during the major part of my life.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT}

Notice the chirping crickets on this issue?kairosfocus_{August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT}

Excellent!kairosfocus_{August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

The troubles, insofar as they have a religious root [as opposed to being an onward extension of the British conquest of Ireland and the way they made the provinces vote on independence separately instead of as a whole so that six remained with the rule of London . . . . ] are due to both sides refusing to heed for instance this rather specific teaching from the scriptures -- the text for today's sermon it turns out -- used by both Protestants and Catholics. Let me clip:
Colossians 3:5-14 Amplified Bible (AMP) 5So kill (deaden, [a]deprive of power) the evil desire lurking in your members [those animal impulses and all that is earthly in you that is employed in sin]: sexual vice, impurity, sensual appetites, unholy desires, and all greed and covetousness, for that is idolatry (the deifying of self and other created things instead of God). 6It is on account of these [very sins] that the [holy] anger of God is ever coming upon the sons of disobedience (those who are obstinately opposed to the divine will), 7Among whom you also once walked, when you were living in and addicted to [such practices]. 8But now put away and rid yourselves [completely] of all these things: anger, rage, bad feeling toward others, curses and slander, and foulmouthed abuse and shameful utterances from your lips [evil thoughts, feelings and words are precursors to evil deeds . . . ]! 9Do not lie to one another, for you have stripped off the old (unregenerate) self with its evil practices, 10And have clothed yourselves with the new [spiritual self], which is [ever in the process of being] renewed and remolded into [fuller and more perfect [b]knowledge upon] knowledge after the image (the likeness) of Him Who created it. 11[In this new creation all distinctions vanish.] There [c]is no room for and there can be neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, [nor difference between nations whether alien] barbarians or Scythians [[d]who are the most savage of all], nor slave or free man; but Christ is all and in all [[e]everything and everywhere, to all men, without distinction of person]. 12Clothe yourselves therefore, as God's own chosen ones (His own picked representatives), [who are] purified and holy and well-beloved [by God Himself, by putting on behavior marked by] tenderhearted pity and mercy, kind feeling, a lowly opinion of yourselves, gentle ways, [and] patience [which is tireless and long-suffering, and has the power to endure whatever comes, with good temper]. 13Be gentle and forbearing with one another and, if one has a difference (a grievance or complaint) against another, readily pardoning each other; even as the Lord has [freely] forgiven you, so must you also [forgive]. 14And above all these [put on] love and enfold yourselves with the bond of perfectness [which binds everything together completely in ideal harmony]. Footnotes: Colossians 3:5 Joseph Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon. Colossians 3:10 Literal translation. Colossians 3:11 Marvin Vincent, Word Studies. Colossians 3:11 Marvin Vincent, Word Studies. Colossians 3:11 James C. Gray and George M. Adams, Bible Commentary.
So, whose fault is that, the principles of morality and their ultimate warranting grounds, or the fact that as finite, fallible, morally fallen/struggling sinners, we are all too often ill-willed and stubborn about refusing to first remove planks from our eyes before we demand that our fellows remove sawdust from theirs? So, let us remember that when we despise or angrily dismiss the NT scriptures on some well poisoning or red herring rhetoric or other, that is what we are dismissing. Please, let us put things in proper and balanced perspective. And, this has utterly nothing -- other than to distract -- to do with the issue of warrant for ought. What is the IS that can ground OUGHT? The only solid answer to that is the inherently good Creator God who is the architect of the cosmos. Nothing else can provide an IS that can properly logically ground ought. As a result, such views as are incompatible with such a foundational is end in radical relativism and/or the amorality of might makes right, if pressed to their logical conclusion. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT}

It was also not so widely reported in recent times that the grandfathers of these Japanese were responsible for the rape of Nanking, and much more. The Chinese were viewed by those grandfathers as other, so the power of the tribe led to massacre rape and worse. 1/4 million murdered IIRC. This time around, law and order did not break down in Japan. That is all that this means, it does not mean that evolutionary materialism does not lead to radical relativism, which inter alia comes in the form of cultural/tribal relativism. What needs to be faced, is the challenge of warrant. We need a worldview foundational IS capable of grounding OUGHT. (Try this one for size.)kairosfocus_{August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

It was widely reported that the Japanese did not riot or loot when in the aftermath of their recent tsunami disaster too, and they are nonreligious for the most part. Why are you comparing the lack of a riot after a natural disaster with a riot that spawned from no natural disaster? Hey, the british didn't riot *today*, so clearly there's no moral problem in the UK, right? When rioters riot and looter loot, it is not due to a lack of religion, but because they are choosing to act in a way that is contrary to what they themselves would consider evil if that same act was done to them. What makes you think they would 'consider it evil'? What makes you think they even believe that 'good' and 'evil' exist? Why isn't another candidate - that they have secular morals and secular values upon which they justify their secular actions - considered? Why not consider the possibility that they believe morality, the very concepts of good and evil, are a bunch of BS-words that come down to personal likes and dislikes and feelings in the end? Or that their 'secularization' left them with a moral vacuum, and that this moral vacuum may be unable to be filled given atheism and materialism - and will have to be replaced instead by threats of harsh punishments, additional camera observation, and so on? When nonreligions people do not riot or loot, it is not due to their lack of religion but because they are acting on what they know to be morally good even though they don’t acknowledge the locus of that moral good. Or because of the fear of repercussions. Or because, in the case of Japan, their nationalism or possibly even racial homogeneity, was a factor. Or because the idea simply did not occur to them, rather than occurred to them and was discarded as 'morally evil'. Not to mention that the question of 'religiosity' in the east is more complex than in the west. Bottom line..No correlation can be made between nonreligious and evil acts, and religious and good acts. We are all capable of doing either good or evil, irrespective of our personal beliefs. Bottom line - the idea that 'personal beliefs' play no role in a person's behavior is so ridiculous that it needs no refutation. Though really, the riots in Britain did have a comedic aspect, since it came hot on the heels of Coyne going on about how *clearly* atheism can lead to nothing bad, because we see secular countries and golly, there's no rioting in the streets.nullasalus_{August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

You mean the rioting by youth in Northern Ireland? When was that?Mung_{August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT}

Yes indeed :) Well said.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT}

So how do you account for the Troubles in Northern Ireland? no gangs or tribes?Elizabeth Liddle_{August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT}

It was widely reported that the Japanese did not riot or loot when in the aftermath of their recent tsunami disaster too, and they are nonreligious for the most part. What conclusion could we come to except that 1. When rioters riot and looter loot, it is not due to a lack of religion, but because they are choosing to act in a way that is contrary to what they themselves would consider evil if that same act was done to them. 2. When nonreligions people do not riot or loot, it is not due to their lack of religion but because they are acting on what they know to be morally good even though they don't acknowledge the locus of that moral good. Bottom line..No correlation can be made between nonreligious and evil acts, and religious and good acts. We are all capable of doing either good or evil, irrespective of our personal beliefs.Bantay_{August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT}

News Here is Plato's warning from 360 BC, in The Laws, Bk X: ____________ >> [[The avant garde philosophers, teachers and artists c. 400 BC] say that the greatest and fairest things are the work of nature and of chance, the lesser of art [[ i.e. techne], which, receiving from nature the greater and primeval creations, moulds and fashions all those lesser works which are generally termed artificial . . . They say that fire and water, and earth and air [[i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art, and that as to the bodies which come next in order-earth, and sun, and moon, and stars-they have been created by means of these absolutely inanimate existences. The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them-of hot with cold, or of dry with moist, or of soft with hard, and according to all the other accidental admixtures of opposites which have been formed by necessity. After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only . . . . [[T]hese people would say that the Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made . . . These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might [[ Evolutionary materialism leads to the promotion of amorality], and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [[Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles; cf. dramatisation here], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others [[such amoral factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless tyranny; here, too, Plato hints at the career of Alcibiades], and not in legal subjection to them . . . >> ____________ Yes, we were warned 2,350 years ago on the amoral implications of evolutionary materialism. By a leading voice in our intellectual culture. Who in correction then went on to discuss the self-moved ensouled living entity, and to draw a cosmological design inference. (He began by distancing himself from the pagan traditions.) Those who refused to heed this and subsequent warnings have some serious explaining to do. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply